People v. Saraum
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Amado I. Saraum was charged with violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, for possession of instruments/equipment fit for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body. The Information alleged that on August 17, 2006, at around 12:45 A.M., in Cebu City, Saraum possessed a lighter, a rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil. A buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip regarding illegal drug activities. During the operation, the target, "Pata," eluded arrest and ran into his shanty. Inside the shanty, Saraum and another individual, Peter Esperanza, were found holding drug paraphernalia. PO3 Jeffrey Larrobis recovered from Saraum a lighter, rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil, which were marked and confiscated. Saraum denied the offense, claiming he was merely passing by and was held by armed men. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Cebu City, found Saraum guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years imprisonment and a fine of Php20,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The drug paraphernalia were ordered forfeited. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's judgment. Saraum filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Saraum sought to reverse the CA's decision, arguing against his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 were sufficiently established. Whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent seizure of drug paraphernalia were lawful. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized items.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the elements of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia: The Court held that the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The prosecution established that Saraum was in possession of a lighter, rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil, which are considered drug paraphernalia. The Court noted that a laboratory examination for the presence of illegal substances is not necessary as the possession of the paraphernalia itself is the punishable act. On the warrantless arrest and seizure: The Court found that Saraum was arrested in flagrante delicto, which justifies a warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The arresting officers witnessed Saraum holding the drug paraphernalia in preparation for a "shabu" pot session. The arrest was part of a hot pursuit operation after the target "Pata" eluded arrest and entered the shanty where Saraum was incidentally found. The Court also ruled that the search and seizure of the drug paraphernalia were lawful as they were in plain view during the course of a lawful intrusion. Furthermore, even if the arrest were considered invalid, Saraum was deemed to have waived any objection by failing to move for the quashing of the Information before his arraignment, as required by the rules. His objection was raised only during the formal offer of evidence. On the chain of custody: The Court acknowledged that Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates immediate physical inventory and photography of seized items. However, it reiterated that non-compliance is not fatal if there is a justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. While no "justifiable ground" was explicitly shown for the omission of inventory and photography, the Court found that Saraum failed to specifically challenge the custody, safekeeping, or disposition of the paraphernalia before the trial court. He could not raise this issue for the first time on appeal. The Court emphasized that the crucial link in the chain of custody was established, showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia were not compromised. The police officers' testimonies were accorded full faith and credit due to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and the absence of ill motive. Saraum's denial was considered a weak defense, easily concocted and unsubstantiated by strong, clear, and convincing evidence.
Main Doctrine
Possession of drug paraphernalia, even without the presence of dangerous drugs, is punishable under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding inventory and photography does not render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are preserved and the accused fails to challenge the custody and safekeeping before the trial court.